dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-C-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 26,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a golfer, seeks classification as an: individual of extraordinary ability in athletics. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability 
through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in 
their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), which necessitates 
either 1) documentation of a one-time major achievement; or 2) materials that show he meets at least 
three often regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits documentation of his 
income for 2013 and 2014 as well as some information pertaining to the sports associations of which he 
is a member, and argues that the Director erred in concluding that he did not meet the membership in 
associations crit7rion and the high salary criterion. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may establish his eligibility by demonstrating extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. Specifically, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
Aliens with extraordinary ability.-- An alien is described in this subparagraph if-
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
Matter of T-C-
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained acclaim and 
the recognition of his achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this documentation, then he must 
provide sufficient qualifying evidence indicating that he meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for 
relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of 
the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
. Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the Petitioner, as initial evidence, may present a one­
time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, the Petitioner has 
not claimed or shown that he is the recipient of a qualifying award at a level similar to that of the 
Nobel Prize. As such, the Petitioner must provide at least three of the ten types of documentation 
listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the Petitioner specifically challenges the Director's findings relating to regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and (ix). As the Petitioner does not continue to maintain that he meets, 
and has not argued that the Director erred in regard to, any other enumerated criteria, they will not be 
discussed in this decision. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets any of those 
criteria. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-C-
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. Upon a review of the record, we agree 
that the Petitioner has provided evidence of the receipt of lesser internationally recognized prizes. 
Specifically, the Petitioner submitted evidence of the receipt of both a silver medal and a bronze 
medal from the held in Canada. As a result, the Petitioner has 
satisfied this criterion. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion by virtue of his membership in the 
the and the 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must show that the association 
requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute 
outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; 
the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
To explain the nature and requirements of the the Petitioner submitted a 
letter from president, In his letter, explains 
that the is an "internationally recognized membership organization that 
sanctions, 
cosponsors and promotes men's professional golf tournaments .... " According to 
the 1s a developmental tour that provides golfers with 
opportunities to compete to qualify for the which, in tum, is "the principal pathway 
for professional golfers to qualify on the Individual golfers enter the 
through either qualifying tournaments or a "qualifying school" and then must either 
wm a tournament or "place in the top 60 of the 
' to remain in the association. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that outstanding 
achievements are required as prerequisites for membership in the or that 
placing in the top 60 of the developmental golf tour, 
qualifies as an outstanding achievement in the field of professional golf. 
From the evidence, the is a developmental tour similar to the 
The Petitioner provided a letter from president, 
who states that the organization is "an internationally 
recognized membership organization that sanctions, 
cosponsors and promotes men's professional 
golf tournaments .... " Noting the association's relationship to the states 
the ' has also launched three developmental tours known as 
and The 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of T-C-
Petitioner provided no membership requirements for this assoctatwn and, therefore, has not 
demonstrated that it requires outstanding achievements for entry. 
The Petitioner supplied two letters, each of which attest to his past membership in the 
from Championships and Rules Director; and one from 
Director. Neither author identifies the requirements for membership in this association. 
both indicate that the organization is open to amateur golfers. 
one 
Executive 
However, 
The Petitioner provided evidence of his membership in the tours identified above. However, each is 
a developmental tour the goal of which is to prepare the player and provide him with an avenue by 
which he may enter the The Petitioner has provided no evidence to demonstrate that 
outstanding achievements are required for prospective members and, therefore, has not satisfied this 
criterion. 
Published material about the alien in proftssional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the fidd for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. Upon a review of the record, we agree 
that the Petitioner has provided evidence of published material about him and his golf performance 
which appeared in professional publications. Specifically, the Petitioner submitted evidence of news 
coverage of his performance in several tournaments that were published on web sites such as 
and As a result, the Petitioner has satisfied this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion when his income is compared specifically 
with other golfers on the In this case, the petitioner must not only submit 
evidence of remuneration for services but also submit evidence that the remuneration is significantly 
high when compared to the remuneration of that type which others in the field receive. 
The Petitioner provided a copy of a sponsorship contract with for 2016, copies 
of the Petitioner's IRS Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2013 and 2014, and a copy 
of his official profile, which shows his year-to-date winnings total for 2015 
as well as his career winnings total. The Petitioner, as a professional golfer, does not receive a salary. 
Rather, his income derives from tournament winnings and remuneration from endorsements. As such, 
we must consider whether the evidence demonstrates ,that the Petitioner's income represents 
significantly high remuneration for services. 
The Petitioner filed Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on November 10, 2015. His 
contract with was signed on January 18, 2016, two months after the filing of the petition. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-C-
Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8. C.F .R. § § 103 .2(b )( 1 ), ( 12). 1 Because the 
Petitioner signed the contract with after filing the I -140 petition, we cannot consider this as 
evidence of remuneration for purposes of eligibility in this case. Regardless, the contract guarantees 
$25,000 in compensation for 2016 with bonuses to be paid in the event 
that the Petitioner wins 
certain tournaments. The Petitioner, however, provided no comparable evidence such as 
endorsement contracts for other professional golfers to show that $25,000 is significantly high. 
The Petitioner's tax returns show $116,267 in total income for 2013 and $103,725 for 2014. In his 
appellate brief, the Petitioner clarifies that these sums include both prize money and endorsement 
compensation. In fact, according to the Petitioner's official profile, he 
earned $42,073 in prize money in 2014 and $70,342 in 2015. The Petitioner participates in a tour 
which, albeit a developmental tour, is associated with the the primary body that regulates 
professional golf competitions. In order to determine whether the Petitioner's remuneration is 
considered significantly high relative to others in the field, comparison would have to be made not only 
to other golfers playing on the but also to those golfers playing at all 
professional levels of the The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his winnings or 
total income for the years 2013, 2014, or 2015 constitutes significantly high remuneration as compared 
with other professional golfers in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner notes that he does not compete within the but competes in the 
of the Consequently, the Petitioner maintains that his earnings "should be 
considered specifically against the earnings of others within the The Petitioner 
cites Skokos v. USCIS, 420 Fed. Appx. 712 (9th Cir. 2011) and Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 969 
(N.D. Ill. 1996) in support of his claim. The Skokos court found that the petitioner had attempted to 
compare himself with an "average ' security guard'" rather than with security consultants as he 
claimed to be. In Grimson , the court found that it was appropriate -to compare the Petitioner, an 
enforcer in the Na,tional Hockey League (NHL), with other NHL enforcers for purposes of 
determining whether his salary was considered high. 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability, one of those individuals in 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Commensurate with such 
standing, the Petitioner must submit documentary evidence ofthe earnings of those in his occupation 
performing similar work at the top level of the field.2 In the instant circumstance, the Petitioner 
1 Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm 'r 1971 ). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the 
petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That 
decision, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981 ), further provides that USC IS cannot "consider facts 
that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Jd at 176. 
2 While the AAO acknowledges that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Racine v. INS, 
1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated, "[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the 
appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of 
play; but rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with 
. .. the definition of the term [extraordinary ability at] 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the 
preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99 ." 
5 
Matter ofT-C-
claims extraordinary ability as a golfer, yet states that he does not play at the highest level of the 
sport and maintains that his remuneration should only be compared against other golfers playing on 
the international developmental level. The Petitioner has not shown that high remuneration in 
developmental level golf is indicative of significantly high remuneration consistent within the plain 
meaning of this criterion. 
For this reason, the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documents submitted in support of extraordinary ability must show that the individual has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of his or her field of endeavor. Had the Petitioner provided evidence satisfying at least three 
evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits determination that considers all of the 
filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: ( 1) a "level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
(3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first 
counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final 
merits determination). Although we need not provide the type of final merits determination 
referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner 
has not established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. It is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-C-, ID# 17825 (AAO Aug. 26, 2016) 
6